Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Greens for Trump?

The Green Party's US presidential candidate, Jill Stein, sounds like Ralph Nader in 2000, who argued that there was no real difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. It's as bad an argument today as it was then – and even more dangerous, given that it could help elect Donald Trump.

MELBOURNE – I’m a Green. I’ve twice been the Australian Greens’ candidate for a seat in Australia’s federal parliament. But on November 8, all of the good that the Green political movement has done since it was founded could be outweighed by the Green Party in the United States if Jill Stein, its candidate for president, brings about the election of Donald Trump.

We’ve been here before. In 2000, Al Gore would have become president if he had won Florida. George W. Bush won the state by 537 votes, while 97,241 Floridians voted for Ralph Nader, the Green candidate. Nader subsequently wrote on his website: “In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.” If we divide up Nader’s vote in that way, the result is that, without him in the race, Gore would have won Florida by more than 12,000 votes.

Before the election, a group of former activists for Nader published an open letter calling on him to end his campaign. “It is now clear,” they wrote, “that you might well give the White House to Bush.” Nader refused, saying that there was no significant difference between the two major party candidates.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

When I first read this opinion, back in August, I was not very much convinced by the idea to "vote for the least bad of the 2 big ones even if you really prefer a 3rd one".

Maybe because I'm not american and so I'm used neither to the "states electors" system nor to the "winner takes it all" system in the vast majority of US states, I defended the idea to "really vote for your choice even if it's not 1 of the 2 big ones".

Now, seeing Trump get the presidency (I still have trouble believing it...) by taking all electors in some crucial states by such a narrow real margin, I changed my mind: with the above premises (i.t. a system of electors + winner-take-all), we should really "vote for the least bad of the 2 big ones".

The truth is that the case for the two leaders being much the same in 2000 wasn't crazy. They disagreed at the margins, but not on huge issues, It was reasonsable to think that the left would win big in the mid-terms if Bush were elected, and vice versa if Bush was elected,Bush projected a kinder, gentler, conservatism, Gore a conservative brutal liberalism. Wrong, as it turns out, but noone could have predcted the lunatic determination to invade Iraq. So not crazy.

But...to think that Trump and Hillary will be anything like each other takes a spectacular leap of faith; one that its fine to bet your own life n, but that you have no right to bet other people's lives on. This isn't a left/right thing (he's a dixiecrat, racist friend of big government; she's a neoliberal cosmopolitan, uncomfortable with big government. The key issue is that he is completely unfit for office; a terrifiyingly ignorant and unrestrained person, so addled with the entitlement of the super rich that he doesn't understand the most basic questions about how to go about governing. Maybe hell turn out just fine, but you;d be a lunatic to make that bet, and if he is not fine in office the stakes are very hgh. This isn't a reality TV gae, its a game being played with working people's lives and living conditions.

Imagine if Jeb Bush and the Republican Party crooks didn't fix the election result in Florida. Gore would have been President. GW Bush won by 537 votes but just one irregularity was of 50,000 alleged ex felons being excluded from the voting roll. How many of these people do you think would have voted Republican? No doubt nearly all of this group that wanted to vote would have voted for Gore.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/10/florida-election-2000

Returning to the current US Presidential election, imagine if the US Democratic Party did not sabotage their own candidate selection process. The far more popular candidate Bernie Sanders would have won instead of Hillary Clinton and according to most polls he would have destroyed Trump in the Presidential election campaign. No need to worry about the US Green Party in such a landslide.

The Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is polling very well at about 10%. Who is complaining about him splitting the Republican vote? The US Green Party will struggle to get to 10% unless Sanders joins them which looks unlikely. Jill Stein running for the Presidency cannot be seen as a spoiling factor for Hillary.

Why should the US only ever have a choice between substandard Republican and Democrat candidates. But for this election it's even worse than that as it's now a choice between a neo-fascist catastrophe or a neo-liberal disaster.

Bottling up the political aspirations of the people by corrupting the democratic process only builds anger so when the disliked parties finally fall it will be decisive and for a long time.

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Singer. A vote for either Clinton or Trump is a vote for complete nonsense. A vote for Jill Stein - better yet for Gary Johnson - is a vote for responsible government. The idea that you can get responsible government in Washington by electing either a Democrat or a Republican is laughable, perhaps pathetic.

Shame you don't approach AUSTRALIAN politics the same way. AUSTRALIAN Green MPs voted AGAINST legislation to create Austrlaia's first emissions trading scheme. They are intent on destroying the ALP, Australia's centre left, progressive movement.

The neo-liberal Australian Labor Party is intent on destroying itself, unless they become progressive again, just like the US Democrats. The Australian Greens have always wanted an effective carbon tax or an effective carbon trading scheme, not hopelessly compromised irrelevance.

Yes. The rules vary per state. In most states you HAVE to run a presidential and or governor candidate and get a certain percentage of the vote, like 12% in order to qualify as a third party. Your candidate needs to be at 15% in the polls to even get into the debates. On the lower levels it is similar or they just don't invite you. But most importantly, people who advocate not splitting the vote to keep Trump out are missing a really important fact. People do not want either candidate. They do not want to vote for either one. People are not willing to help them get elected. Period. As in what part of no do you not understand? This is an historic and inevitable shift that has been brought about by the shift to the right of both parties. In America voting is the only way most citizens have of expressing their desires for their country. No one has the right to take that away from us by forcing us to vote for people we don't want because of who they are, not because of some political strategy. To the author, be advised, things are going to keep changing and moving to the right and to the left. I was out passing out Green party brochures yesterday and people were glad to get them and happy to see me.

The US Green Party is a non-entity excepting presidential elections. Tactical discussions aside, they haven't a clue about grassroots organizing, building a base other than a 4-year protest vote.

It does appear that Sanders is serious about that task and co-opts the Green platform in the process. Only an educated guess; but, I think he is ready to build an independent progressive movement prepared to move away from the mediocrity that is the Democratic Party - once a real base is constructed.

Why did the USA force Germany to have a multi-party system to form government? Yes to fend off extremist governments having total control. Why is the USA a 2 party system? It's to pretend there's democracy that's why. Wow at the unlimited political finance rulings. Until that ends the USA will die a slow death whilst the world burns from climate change.

This is such an old story, there is no point in bringing it up any more. Al Gore has proven himself, time after time to be a mere poseur, a DLC Republicrat working behind the scenes to advance neoliberal corporate interests. His record on the environment, specifically on forestry issues, as Vice President was deplorable. We all know about his academy award winning film made well after the election, but the question is academic as to whether, as President, he would have been advocate for sustainable energy. No one knows what he would have done, nor how he would have reacted to the WTC tragedy.

Furthermore, had he won own state, or run a better campaign, or managed the Florida recount better, he might well have won the election despite the small percentage of votes that went to Ralph Nader.

The nation would be much better served with more than two political parties vying for power every few years, particularly if one of them were arguing for the greater good instead of the lesser evil.

Peter Singer, once a Green party candidate in Australia is doing what he can to prevent Jill Stein, the independent candidate of the American Green Party to run in November, because he fears she would take away Hillary Clinton's votes and help Donald Trump win. He reminds us of the 2000 presidential election, in which Ralph Nader, the Green candidate took away Al Gore's votes, enabling George W. Bush win the election. He says history could repeat itself, if Jill Stein doesn't quit.
In 2000 Nader refused to give up the race, despite warnings that he "might give the White House to Bush." He insisted "there was no significant difference between the two major party candidates," which was nonsense, because Gore was "the strongest advocate of urgent action on climate change ever." In hindsight it showed what harm Nader had done to the country, because it had - under Bush - invaded two Muslim countries: Iraq and Afghanistan, which had cost trillions of dollars, without bringing stability to the Middle East.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are among the most unpopular presidential nominees in US history. Both are distrusted and disliked by large sections of the electorate, and their supporters don't endorse them, but they just don't like the other candidate. That's why many voters - around 10% in recent polls - say they will instead choose a third candidate in November. Jill Stein believes she is that other choice. She was officially nominated at the party convention last week, during which it was hard to tell whether the more dominant emotion was enthusiasm for her or dislike of Hillary Clinton.
Stein insisted that her presidential bid had a viable “near term goal” of reaching 15% in national polling, which would enable her to stand alongside nominees Clinton and Donald Trump in televised election debates. While seen as a thorn in the Democrats' side, many Bernie Sanders’ supporters welcome her move, and they are flocking to the Greens rather than Hillary Clinton."
Singer points out that "Stein is sounding just like Nader in 2000. Asked if the prospect of a Trump presidency is equal to that of a Clinton one, she replied, “they both lead to the same place.” She then said that the Democrats “have better spin…but they’re catastrophic as well.” In support of that, she added, “Just look at the policies under Obama on climate change.” This is flagrant disregard for Obama's legacy - the Paris climate agreement in December 2015.
Stein sees herself as an idealist, seeking opportunity for political transformation born of disillusionment with the two main parties amid costly, expanding and futile wars, a rapidly changing climate and young people trapped by student loan debt. Like Ralph Nader, she insists she is the right person to change America. Her slogan on her Twitter feed is a direct repudiation of Democratic arguments that failing to vote for Clinton would help Trump: “Time To Reject The Lesser Evil For The Greater Good”. It looks as though she hates Hillary Clinton, that she would rather help Trump win, than seeing the Democrats' nominee be America's first female president.
Now Singer asks, whether history would repeat itself. Given Trump's pathological narcissism, ignorance, lack of political acumen and social competence, he "would be an even worse president than George W. Bush," so he hopes not. "But Stein is on the ballot in Florida and Ohio, two big states that could decide the election. One recent poll gives her 3% of the vote, enough to make the difference in either of those states." Now he calls on "Green party leaders all over the world to ask Stein to take her name off the ballot in states where the contest is likely to be close. If she won’t do it, they should take their appeal to voters, and ask them, in this election only, not to vote Green. The stakes are too high."
The author knows that the current two-party system leaves much to be desired, and that the US needs a "voting reform." But "Greens should not be working to elect a Green president, which is impossible under the current system, but to institute a fairer voting system, perhaps like Australia’s, which uses what is known in the US as 'instant runoff''. Voters rank the candidates in order of preference, and if no candidate receives a majority of all votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The votes received by that candidate would then be transferred in accordance with the second preferences of those who voted for him or her."
Ideally, "Stein’s voters would be able to vote for their candidate without worrying that their choice might benefit Trump, who presumably would not be these voters’ second preference." Unfortunately the US doesn't have "such a system." It explains why he is frustrated and writes this column.

Donald Trump with his ghastly ignorance of world affairs, history,misogynistic, racist statements is unfit to become the president of USA. I wonder if he even reads daily newspapers! It is very certain that he will not becvome the president.

But the question is what about those millions of his admirers who scream and imitate his mannerisms.?

Better a slow and thorough manual count of paper votes than a quick untraceable and possibly corruptible electronic voting system.

Australia, the US and the UK would all be much better served by a proportional representation voting such as the Tasmanian Hare Clark voting system used for the lower house of their parliaments. With this voting system, during state or federal/national elections five local representatives are elected for five times larger local electoral seats or electorates.

Some other proportional representation voting system now appears necessary for US Presidential elections to break the grip of an obviously corrupt party duopoly.

I've heard about a strategy for Greens and disaffected Democrats to vote their conscience without getting Trump elected. The idea is to "swap votes" with a conservative friend in the same state: say, "I won't vote for Clinton if you don't vote for Trump." That way you can both vote for a third-party candidate without helping the least-preferred candidate win, because the Clinton vs. Trump vote will still come out the same. Doesn't that solve the problem that Prof. Singer describes here?

First of all, it is insincere. If the Democratic party had defeating the opposition as their priority, they shouldn't have nominated Clinton. They were able to figure this out in 2008 and it worked fine. We can read the polling numbers easily enough -- the preference of voters, then and now, is definitely not a status-quo candidate. Voters may still vote for Clinton on the basis of her being the lesser evil, but we should remember the same applies to Trump voters -- they don't necessarily like him, they may just be less scared of him than the alternative.

Secondly, consider what would happen if the author got his wish. Progressive voters would compromise to try to keep Trump from winning. 2 possibilities here. Less likely, is that Trump still wins, but now the Democratic opposition to his future government, in this scenario, has neutered itself by moving center-right. More likely, Clinton wins, and we get... a vaguely center-right, pro-war (I cannot state this enough) interventionist Democrat-neo-con, who is also pro-big-business, anti-progressive, with the consolation prize of having good manners during public appearances, while still pursuing policies most voters think are harmful to their interests.

No, the problem happened much earlier in the process -- our 2-party system failed to provide us with any attractive choices, except outside of the 2 parties.

In fact, the power to be a spoiler is about the only leverage an "outside" party has in a 2-party system. Refusing to use that power is to give up the only negotiating tactic available to a voter who finds both the Democratic and Republican nominee extremely distasteful, and likely to continue harming the future prospects of the US, taking us further down the road the Bush administration set off on.

If a pro-democratic commentator is offended by this unpleasant reality, maybe they should compromise on the death-grip the 2-party system has on US politics. Instant runoff voting / Ranked choice voting would allow voters to vote for both a "good" candidate and a "safe" candidate, in a way that ensures that their vote would never have the effect of empowering the one they think is the "maximally-bad" candidate.

I have tremendous respect for Chomsky, but I'm not the only one who disagrees here. The "safe state" strategy, to be blunt, is one that intentionally has zero effect on the electoral outcome. Thus it relies completely on inducing some kind of feelings of "guilt" or "responsibility" in the Democratic party. This is nonsense.

The Democratic party (as any party) can and do respond to the possibility of losing, and they can and do make progressive moves when facing a realistic threat of that. The best example is the most progressive thing the party has done in recent memory -- electing Barack Obama. Amazingly, and positively, they learned from Gore's loss in 2000. Not this year, it seems, but perhaps again in the future.

That this article is even being written is evidence that they are feeling pressure from the left. That's a good thing. When people call you obstructionists or spoilers or whatever, that is a sign that they realize they may need to negotiate, though of course some name calling comes first as a bluff.

As for who is being insincere -- I am not saying voters who preferred to nominate Clinton are insincere. Foolish, perhaps, but not insincere. The insincere ones are those advancing the argument that a progressive voter has any kind of obligation to throw away their vote by voting for a candidate they find to be bad.

Good piece - even Noam Chomsky, who has called the Democratic and Republican parties two wings of the "Business Party", has acknowledged the differences between Clinton and Trump, particularly on existential or catastrophic threats to humanity's long-term future, such as climate change and nuclear weapons.

I would favour his method of voting for Clinton in a swing state and voting for the Greens (if you support the Greens, which I don't) in a safe state.

To other people on here saying that this is insincere, they should remember that it was Democratic primary voters - ordinary people - who voted for Clinton. I do believe that Sanders would have had a better shot against Trump, but it's quite clear that Clinton will win as well.

Clinton is, to understate it, problematic, particularly on foreign policy. That doesn't mean people should vote for the Greens, though, for the reasons both Professor Singer and Professor Chomsky have stated.

As for one commenter's complaint about the two-party system and the voting system, Singer addresses this in the actual article.

This post is badly misinformed. For one, Gore paid little attention to Climate Change during the campaign. The sort of climate action Gore favored were typical of carbon trading schemes full of loopholes for corporate polluters. He opposes carbon taxes.

As for the Iraq invasion, Gore fully accepted the WMD myth, and strongly favored the invasion. A review of his public speeches both before and after the invasion will show this.

The Greens need presidential candidates to make strong showing, let alone winning, which in this crazy election year is NOT an impossibility. Ballot access in many states is next to impossible, and many states' ballot access depends on the showing of parties in the presidential elections. Without these breakthroughs, any solution to press for electoral reform in the United States is futile because it's not in the interests of Democrats and Republicans to countenance competition. They will block any attempt to open up access to any but themselves.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.